An unjust-enrichment claim for restitution does not fall within the jurisdictional ground in Article 5(3).

A passenger's compensation claim under Regulation No 261/2004 against the operating air carrier is a matter relating to a contract under Article 5(1), even if the passenger and that carrier did not conclude a contract and the flight was provided for by a package travel contract with a third party that also included accommodation.

In a tort action by an investor against the issuing bank based on the prospectus for a certificate, the courts of the investor's domicile have jurisdiction as the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred under Article 5(3), where the alleged damage is financial loss that occurred directly in the investor's bank account with a bank established within those courts' jurisdiction and the other specific circumstances also contribute to attributing jurisdiction to those courts.

For a contract for the carriage of goods between Member States performed in several stages, with stops and by more than one means of transport, both the place of dispatch and the place of delivery are places where the transport services are provided for the purposes of the second indent of Article 5(1)(b).

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 provides that, in an action for damages caused by anticompetitive conduct, the "place where the harmful event occurred" includes, among other places, the place where the loss of income from lost sales occurred, i.e. the affected market where the victim claims to have suffered those losses.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 provides that, in an action for damages caused by anticompetitive conduct, the "place where the harmful event occurred" may mean either the place where an anticompetitive agreement contrary to Article 101 TFEU was concluded or, where predatory prices constituted an infringement of Article 102 TFEU, the place where those prices were offered and applied.

Article 5(5) of Regulation No 44/2001 covers an action for damages allegedly caused by an abuse of a dominant position through predatory pricing, provided that a branch of the undertaking holding the dominant position actually and significantly participated in that abusive practice.

A challenge to the jurisdiction of the court seised, raised in the defendant's first submission in the alternative to other procedural objections in that same submission, is not acceptance of that court's jurisdiction and does not prorogate jurisdiction under Article 24. When the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State, an action for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be brought before the Community design courts of that Member State - except where jurisdiction has been prorogated under Article 23 or Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, and subject to the rules on lis pendens and related actions in those regulations. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to actions for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of Regulation No 6/2002. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 also does not apply to actions for a declaration of abuse of a dominant position and of unfair competition that are connected to actions for declaration of non-infringement, in so far as granting those applications presupposes that the action for declaration of non-infringement is allowed.

For an action seeking to establish liability for infringement of the prohibition on resale outside a selective distribution network, resulting from offers on websites operated in various Member States, the place where the damage occurred under Article 5(3) is the territory of the Member State that protects that prohibition by means of the action brought - provided that the appellant alleges a reduction in its sales there.

An action for damages based on the abrupt termination of a long-standing business relationship is not a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict under Article 5(3) if a tacit contractual relationship existed between the parties; that is for the referring court to ascertain. The existence of such a tacit contractual relationship must be shown by a body of consistent evidence, which may include a long-standing business relationship, the parties' good faith, the regularity of the transactions and their development over time in quantity and value, any agreements on prices or discounts, and the correspondence exchanged.

A long-standing business relationship is a "contract for the sale of goods" if its characteristic obligation is the supply of goods. It is a "contract for the provision of services" if its characteristic obligation is the supply of services; that is for the referring court to determine.

Under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, the "place where the harmful event occurred" is not, failing any other connecting factors, the place in a Member State where the damage occurred when the damage is exclusively financial, materialises directly in the applicant's bank account, and directly results from an unlawful act committed in another Member State.

A claim for payment of remuneration under national legislation implementing the fair compensation system in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC falls within matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001.

An action seeking the annulment of a contract and restitution of sums paid but not due on the basis of that contract is a matter relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a).

Where a company sues a person who acted as its director and manager in order to establish misconduct in the performance of those duties and obtain redress, Chapter II, Section 5 (Articles 18 to 21) of Regulation No 44/2001 precludes the application of Article 5(1) and (3) - provided that, in that capacity, the person for a certain period performed services for and under the direction of that company in return for remuneration, which is for the referring court to determine.

Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 covers an action by a company against its former manager for an alleged breach of obligations under company law as a matter relating to a contract. In the absence of any derogating stipulation in the company's articles of association or any other document, it is for the referring court to determine the place where the manager in fact carried out most of his activities in performing the contract - provided that providing services there is not contrary to the parties' intentions as shown by what was agreed.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 covers an action by a company against its former manager for allegedly wrongful conduct as a matter relating to tort or delict, where the conduct complained of cannot be regarded as a breach of the manager's obligations under company law - which is for the referring court to verify. It is for the referring court to identify, on the basis of the facts, the closest linking factor between the place of the event giving rise to the damage and the place where the damage occurred.

In an action for damages for a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, brought against defendants domiciled in various Member States, the harmful event is determined individually for each alleged victim. Each victim may sue either in the courts of the place where the cartel was definitively concluded, or, where one particular agreement can be identified as the sole causal event of the alleged loss, in the courts of the place where that agreement was concluded, or in the courts where that victim's own registered office is located.

In an action for damages for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, jurisdiction clauses in supply contracts may be relied on even if they displace the jurisdiction rules in Article 5(3) or Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 - provided that those clauses refer to disputes about liability arising from an infringement of competition law.

A person who acquired a bearer bond from a third party cannot rely on Article 5(1)(a) against the issuer, for claims based on the bond conditions, breach of the information and control obligations, and prospectus liability, if the issuer did not freely assume an obligation towards that person - which it is for the referring court to verify.

An action against the issuer of a certificate, based on the prospectus relating to it and on breach of other legal information obligations binding on the issuer, falls within Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 - in so far as the alleged liability is not based on a matter relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5(1). Where the alleged damage occurred directly in the applicant's bank account held with a bank within the area of jurisdiction of the courts of the applicant's domicile, those courts have jurisdiction under Article 5(3) as the courts for the place where the loss occurred.

Where copyright and related rights guaranteed by the Member State of the court seised are allegedly infringed by placing protected photographs online on a website accessible within that court's territorial jurisdiction, that court has jurisdiction under Article 5(3), on the basis of the place where the damage occurred, to hear an action for damages. That court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the Member State in which it is situated.

Where unlawful comparative advertising or unfair imitation of a sign protected by a Community trade mark is alleged under the unfair competition law of the Member State of the court seised, Article 5(3) does not allow that court to claim jurisdiction, as the place of the event giving rise to the damage, if the defendant did not himself act in that Member State. In that situation, Article 5(3) does allow that court, as the place where the damage occurred, to hear a damages action under that national law against a person established in another Member State who allegedly committed, in that State, an act that caused or may cause damage within that court's jurisdiction.

Where several supposed perpetrators are alleged to have caused damage to copyright protected in the Member State of the court seised, Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not allow that court to found jurisdiction, by reference to the causal event, on the acts of a supposed perpetrator who is not being sued and did not act within its jurisdiction. It does allow jurisdiction to be founded on the place where the alleged damage occurs, provided that the damage may occur within the jurisdiction of the court seised. Even then, that court has jurisdiction only for the damage caused in the territory of its own Member State.

A civil liability claim brought in tort under national law still falls within "matters relating to a contract" under Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of the contract's terms, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract.

Where a manufacturer faces a claim of liability for a defective product, the "place of the event giving rise to the damage" in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 is the place where the product was manufactured.

2. Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule of jurisdiction laid down in the second indent of that provision for disputes relating to contracts for the supply of services is applicable in the case of a legal action by which a plaintiff established in one Member State claims, against a defendant established in another Member State, rights arising from an exclusive distribution agreement, which requires the contract binding the parties to contain specific terms concerning the distribution by the distributor of goods sold by the grantor. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case in the proceedings before it.

Where copyrights protected in the Member State of the court seised are allegedly infringed, that court may hear an action brought by the author against a company established in another Member State that reproduced the work there on a material support later sold by companies established in a third Member State through a website accessible within that court's jurisdiction. That court has jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused in its own Member State.

'Matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict' in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 covers an action by a creditor of a limited company against a board member and a shareholder, seeking to make them liable for the company's debts because they allowed the company to continue trading even though it was undercapitalised and had to go into liquidation.

For an action seeking to make a board member and a shareholder of a limited company liable for the company's debts, 'the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur' in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 is the place to which the company's activities, and the financial situation linked to those activities, are connected.

The transfer of the claim from the original creditor to another person, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, does not affect which court has jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001.

Article 5(1)(a) applies to jurisdiction in proceedings by the payee of a promissory note, established in one Member State, against the giver of the aval, domiciled in another Member State, even where the note was incomplete when signed and was later completed by the payee.

An action for a negative declaration seeking to establish the absence of liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict falls within point (3) of Article 5.

An action for infringement of a trade mark registered in one Member State, based on an advertiser's use of a keyword identical to that trade mark on a search engine website operating under a country-specific top-level domain of another Member State, may be brought either before the courts of the Member State in which the trade mark is registered or before the courts of the Member State where the advertiser is established.

In the event of an alleged infringement of personality rights through content placed online, the person claiming infringement may seek compensation for all damage either before the courts of the Member State where the publisher is established or before the courts of the Member State where that person's centre of interests is based. Instead, that person may sue before the courts of each Member State where the online content is or has been accessible, but those courts have jurisdiction only for the damage caused in their own Member State.

In distance selling, the place where the goods were or should have been delivered under the contract must be determined from the contract's provisions. To determine whether the contract identifies that place, the national court must consider all relevant terms and clauses capable of clearly identifying it, including terms and clauses generally recognised and applied in international trade or commerce, such as the Incoterms published by the International Chamber of Commerce in 2000. If that place cannot be determined on that basis, without referring to the substantive law applicable to the contract, the place of delivery is where the goods were physically transferred and the purchaser obtained, or should have obtained, actual power of disposal over them at the final destination of the sale.

The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 applies where services are provided in several Member States.

Where services are provided in several Member States, the court with jurisdiction over all claims arising from the contract is the court for the place of the main provision of services. In a commercial agency contract, that place is the place of the agent's main provision of services, determined first from the contract, failing that from the contract's actual performance, and, if it still cannot be established, from the agent's domicile.

A contract for the supply of goods to be manufactured or produced is a 'sale of goods' within the first indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001, even where the purchaser specified requirements for the provision, fabrication and delivery of the components, provided that the purchaser did not supply the materials and the supplier is responsible for the quality of the goods and their compliance with the contract.

In a sale involving carriage of goods, the place where the goods were delivered or should have been delivered must be determined from the contract's provisions. If that place cannot be determined on that basis, without referring to the substantive law applicable to the contract, the place of delivery is where the physical transfer of the goods took place, so that the purchaser obtained, or should have obtained, actual power of disposal over them at the sales transaction's final destination.

In a dispute of this kind, the "place where the harmful event occurred" is the place where the initial damage arose from the product's normal use for its intended purpose.

For a claim for compensation based on a contract for carriage by air and on Regulation No 261/2004, where passengers are carried between two Member States under a contract with a single airline that is the operating carrier, jurisdiction under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) lies, at the claimant's choice, with the court for the place of departure or the place of arrival agreed in the contract.

The first indent of Article 5(1)(b) applies where there are several places of delivery within a single Member State. In that case, jurisdiction for all claims based on the contract for the sale of goods lies with the court for the principal place of delivery, determined on the basis of economic criteria. If no principal place of delivery can be established, the plaintiff may sue in the court for any of the places of delivery of its choice.